It
has taken a while to get to where I believe that I can start this process. I
mean I think I can actually begin to see the light at the end of the tunnel that
marks the start of the research so to speak. It really is wonderful when
you find that the academics advising you and teaching you, though they may not
quite understand what you're going on about, are justified in their faith in the
learning process. As you work your way through the layers of learning that
seem irrelevant to where you THINK you want to go, you begin, often as a direct
or indirect result, to get a clearer vision of the complex path that may
actually get you there. In any event, I believe I can see a few of the
puzzle pieces actually beginning to fit together.
I
will have to draw on many different ideas and disciplines such as psychology,
anthropology, geography, history and political science, but that's much of the
fascination of it all. I think that I will draw on Maslow's Hierarchy of
Needs, but try to apply them to the development of the nation/state. It
should work and I find it quite an insightful assessment of individual
development so see no reason not to take it to the state level. Once a
state is physically and psychologically secure does it not begin to self
identify and eventually (hopefully) to self-actualize? Is the development
of the collective really all that different than the individual?
I
also need to explore strategic geography as well as locale specific
geography/topography to see how they contribute to or obstruct both local and
inter regional transportation and communication or competition versus
cooperation. And how does a country portray itself both currently and
historically in the maps and charts it produces? (Self perception is a
fascinating indicator of many things). It's a question of identifying what
shapes and defines the sense of physicality that evolves around any given state
and the accumulated layers of associated core values that influence perception
and response to threats and opportunities. Sometimes these layers conflict
and sometimes they reinforce (colonialism and post-colonialism?). Why?
And what does that mean over time?
The
MA is supposed to come up with a definition of Strategic Culture and I now see
this as quite achievable, especially if I put it in context with concepts such
as political culture and strategic geography. Tackling the impact of
geography on the political culture of Afghanistan for a directed studies course
this spring will also be a useful stepping stone not just to a definition of
strategic culture, but to the beginnings of later research. It will help
me begin to understand those key elements that define any given strategic
culture. I hope, through this process, to come up with a rudimentary
framework for a Strategic Culture of the tribes in the Afghan region.
Concurrent activity, to borrow from the military, will be to apply those same
elements first to my self, and through the combination try to develop a set of
queries for a later extended study of the Strategic Culture of Canada. I
already have a few ideas about the results of that one! But this learning
path keeps surprising me, so I am content to leave myself open to whatever
comes.
In
terms of Canada, I have a wonderful idea that I hope to pursue with a
couple of able colleagues. I want to prepare a study, with carefully
planned questions and a matrix of sorts for compiling the answers, and head back
and forth across Canada, as a team, to simply talk to people. We will go
first by bus, then by train, then by car. We will ask the questions,
record the answers, take lots of pictures - even publish the questionnaire,
perhaps in a magazine or through the CBC before we go. Who knows? Just gather
grass roots feedback in an informal setting - to see if we can actually identify
a Canadian Strategic Culture. From there I will have a starting point to
what I really want to do - which is to develop a reasonably reliable process for
Comparative Strategic Culture Analysis. If I can do this, I see it
becoming a useful analytic and predictive tool for international relations, more
effective conflict resolution, a well as enhanced and better understood peace
building and peacemaking. I wonder if the Canadian Forces will give me a year
off for directed advanced study? Hmmm.
Comparative Strategic Culture is a term or expression that has been
around conceptually for some time, but has gained in interest since the seventies.
Its origins lie in the field of Cultural Anthropology, but as a specific study
it needs to look beyond socio-cultural understanding to the building of a
predictive capability with regards to a specific culture's strategic profile.
One of the dilemmas facing this emerging discipline is the absence of consensus on a
definition. Multiple conversations on the subject would lead me to concur,
but also to suggest that the challenge is not the overall concept, but the term
"culture". I would have to argue at this point in my thinking and reading,
that it is imperative in an understanding of this concept to define
culture, whether it is individual, organizational or national, in a strategic
context. There are many aspects of a culture that have a direct bearing on
perceptions of threat or opportunity. In my thinking thus far, these would
make up the elements of strategic culture. The key is to isolate the
strategically relevant elements from the encompassing range of historically and
socially enlightening cultural elements.
Can I
create a definition that will achieve a modicum of consensus? Will anyone
even read it? And if they either don't read my definition or don't feed
back on it, how will I know if I have achieved consensus? Will I care?
From the perspective of my own strategic culture, while I realize that am
inclined to want to serve the greater good, I know that I am equally disposed to
pursue a thing simply because it interests me and I see value in achieving a
better understanding.
Strategic[strat-ee-jik]
Adjective
1.
planned to achieve an advantage; tactical
2. (of
weapons, esp. missiles) directed against an enemy's homeland
rather than used on a battlefield
a. The totality of socially
transmitted behavior patterns, arts,
beliefs, institutions, and all other
products of human work and thought.
b. These patterns, traits,
and products considered as the
expression of a particular period,
class, community, or population:
Edwardian
culture; Japanese culture; the
culture of poverty.
c. These patterns, traits,
and products considered with respect
to a particular category, such as a
field, subject, or mode of
expression:
religious
culture in the Middle Ages; musical
culture; oral culture.
d. The predominating
attitudes and behavior that
characterize the functioning of a
group or organization.
2. Intellectual and artistic
activity and the works produced by it.
3.
a. Development of the
intellect through training or
education.
b. Enlightenment resulting
from such training or education.
4. A high degree of taste and
refinement formed by aesthetic and
intellectual training.
5. Special training and
development:
voice culture for singers and actors.
6. The cultivation of soil;
tillage.
7. The breeding of animals or
growing of plants, especially to produce
improved stock.
8. Biology
a. The growing of
microorganisms, tissue cells, or
other living matter in a specially
prepared nutrient medium.
b. Such a growth or colony,
as of bacteria.
tr.v.cul·tured,
cul·tur·ing, cul·tures
1. To cultivate.
[Middle
English, cultivation, from Old
French, from Latin
cultra,
from
cultus,
past participle of
colere;
see cultivate.]
Usage Note: The application of
the term culture to the collective
attitudes and behavior of corporations arose
in business jargon during the late 1980s and
early 1990s. Unlike many locutions that
emerge in business jargon, it spread to
popular use in newspapers and magazines. Few
Usage Panelists object to it. Over 80
percent of Panelists accept the sentence
The new management style is a reversal of
GE's traditional corporate culture, in which
virtually everything the company does is
measured in some form and filed away
somewhere. · Ever since C.P. Snow wrote
of the gap between "the two cultures" (the
humanities and science) in the 1950s, the
notion that culture can refer to
smaller segments of society has seemed
implicit. Its usage in the corporate world
may also have been facilitated by increased
awareness of the importance of genuine
cultural differences in a global economy, as
between Americans and the Japanese, that
have a broad effect on business practices.